What do you gain from criticism of a religious teaching you do not follow or believe in?

[PureX]

It’s not nice threatening anybody with anything, however insubstantial they may consider the threat to be. I don’t think threatening non believers with hell is a good way for religious people to behave. Unfortunately, some do, and so get the rest of us a bad name, just as a handful of particularly belligerent atheists get other atheists a bad name.

But the fact is that if the threat has no actual substance, then why bother about it? If I met someone on the street and they threatened me with hell, I would just ignore them. There'd be no reason to debate with them as they have clearly already decided that reason is of little consequence to them in determining truth. And if my kids were there I'd use the incident to help them understand why reason IS important in determining truth. Not least of which is that it gives them the ability to dismiss such unreasonable threats.

 

[PureX]

Did i say it was a threat?

Oh, brother!

 

[Altfish]

The bill that originated in the HoL, and is currently at the committee stage there?
You have no objection to an unelected 2nd chamber then, you just don't like Bishops sitting alongside Lords?

Oh yes, I have many objections to our second chamber ... but currently it is more democratic than the HoC

 

[ChristineM]

Oh, brother!

Well, are you going to answer or just bluster?

See how this works?

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Does this apply to your own beliefs? Or just to those of others?

It applies to any of the beliefs I may hold for which I do not possess adequate evidence, yes. So, for example, I believe (with only very limited ideation as my "evidence") that the universe is cyclical. Or, rather, I believe this to be likely. That there is some kind of cycle of expansion, and a following contraction, leading to some critical moment that produces another phase of expansion, etc. There are ideas that run contrary to this, such as the "heat death of the universe" that is sometimes discussed. And whether it is due to an ignorance I still maintain (very possibly I just don't care enough to look into it), or due to lack of cogent evidence of a repeatable nature (granted, experiments on small-scale result in maximization of entropy, but I don't know if this can be applied to the macrocosm) or even due to biases I'd rather hold on to as some "hope for the future" of some kind of life-supporting universe, I disbelieve in "the heat death of the universe." Or rather, I have shelved the idea for my own purposes awaiting better or more clear evidence either way, and only "slightly" preferring my own ideas, just for the sake of conversation - its not like it is something I live my life by. Haha. So, you see, it would be these kind of insignificant philosophical or observational items where I might actually tentatively hold (rather than tentatively reject) some proposition for which the evidence I have is lacking. Minor things... things no one else is going to say they care about either to any great degree. Things for which the answer one way or the other actually doesn't change much.

And guess what? I am completely willing to admit that they are just beliefs, and that I COULD BE WRONG. See how that works? I only tentatively hold onto any of these beliefs, and if further evidence shows a better, more accurate model of reality, then I am easily able to climb aboard that train. Easily. No problem at all. I go where the evidence seems to lead. It just so happens that it has never lead to any "God" concept of any kind, and I don't seem to (and no one else I have spoken to seems to) have any good ideas how to go about obtaining evidence for such propositions.

I ask because I, likewise, consider our beliefs to be mostly irrelevant. But I have found it impossible to explain this to just about anyone else. They all seem to think their beliefs are of the utmost importance, and are even sacrosanct.
Why do you care what anyone else believes. You just said beliefs are of little importance.

Short of it is the old "beliefs inform actions." Not only that, but I, personally, simply can't stand it when people talk about things with authority and from a place of knowledge they simply aren't warranted to be speaking from, or claiming they have. And the hallmarks of such are easy to spot most of the time. For example, when questioning someone on their outlandish tales of how they know such things, they will often cite some text they have read (neglecting to mention that it was, for example, their parents who got them on the text in the first place) and have absolutely no other means of verifying what they are so sure is correct. This is just craziness when the item in question is something one purports to live their lives by. I mean, sure, someone may mention in passing that they read that 80% of all Christian marriages last greater than 20 years (this is just for the purposes of example - I made this up 100%) without actually corroborating or fact checking, etc. Fine. No one cares. No one's life was impacted by this little snippet of information, and it doesn't really matter to most anyone you tell whether or not you have the actual evidence to back yourself up. There is a big difference between something little like that, and something like "I have made a vow not to listen to music because devil."

Also, isn't it a good thing for us to exchange our ideas or truth, even bad ones?

I would agree with this to a point. Sharing the ideas is good, and using one another to sound off ideas and get a feel for their measure of worth and comport with reality is a good way for people to hone their ideas to those that are "the best possible." But therein lies the rub for ideas of a religious nature. They aren't "the best," and specifically for the reason that it is not possible to provide evidence for how they measure up to be "the best." They mostly just seem to be very, very poor models of reality, scant on the details and entirely open for interpretation.

After all, the more possible truths we have available to us, the more and better choices we're likely to make for ourselves. Don't you think?

If the reality of human social interaction is any indication, the answer is "no." As in - we're not very likely, on the whole, to make better choices for ourselves given more access to wackiness along with the true bits. Not by a long shot.

 

[RestlessSoul]

Oh yes, I have many objections to our second chamber ... but currently it is more democratic than the HoC

The whole Westminster electoral system is unfit for purpose imo. First past the post creates elected dictatorships, and the HoL can’t really be defended on democratic grounds, even if it does have more honourable people in it than the HoC.

 

[Altfish]

The whole Westminster electoral system is unfit for purpose imo. First past the post creates elected dictatorships, and the HoL can’t really be defended on democratic grounds, even if it does have more honourable people in it than the HoC.

Agrred

 

[Sand Dancer]

Yes. "Freedom" has becomes selfishness. I tend to blame commercial advertising, but it's really the result of a whole lot of things. We've developed into a culture controlled by greed and selfishness and it's spreading throughout the world. The 'great experiment' in freedom and democracy has been kidnapped and raped by capitalism, and we've all just let it happen.

Brilliantly said.

 

[F1fan]

But why the need for pushbacks?

Because that is how these informal debates work. It's a back and forth. If the claimant makes truth claims they don't realize are not rational, then it will be revealed. That is debate, it's not fellowship.

Why not just accept that what they telling is their personal belief?

This is another thing many believers are not aware of. I can't tell you how many times a believer insists their God has authority over me, and that I am a bad person for not agreeing with their dogma. That is not a very humble believer who is just daring you to challenge his bold assertions. The believer puts his neck on the block and critics swing the ax.

Over the many decades I have debated I have seen quite a few learn how bad their beliefs were and they learned a lot about their thinking and beliefs.

I was on Beliefnet from 1999 to about 2010 when they shut down their debate forums. I remember Blu from those forums. We both had the same names, ha. Anyway as time went on on those forums an interesting thing happened. On the Christianity Debate sub-forum there was at first a theist versus atheist pattern. As time went on there was a shift in the alliances of debaters. It was the rational versus the irrational. That is, the atheists and liberal/moderate theists debated the Christian extremists. So atheists were siding with Pagans, Wiccans, Muslims, witches, liberal Christians, etc., and defending their right to believe as they wish. The Christian extremists were pretty aggressive and very certain they were correct. there was even one white supremacist who insisted Christianity was a white person's religion. Oh boy. Gina.

This good feeling that occurred might be what you are hoping would happen here. I'll say Bnet had loads more members and vastly more diversity of believers. There are just a small core group here who mash it out, so it is more of an independent situation.

 

[oldbadger]

No he doesn't. You just assumed there was such an assumption.

Maybe read the first sentence of the OP.

The first sentence.... Fitted me like a glove.

But I do tend to answer OPs whatever the subject matter.
No probs. ...I'll leave it.

 

[F1fan]

So to you, each time a person of faith want to ask a question or let others ask them question about their beliefs.
They have to add a user manual for the non-believer to read first?

See now you are being cynical because you don't like that I think we all need to be responsible for how we post and debate. Why should non-believers walk on eggshells?

If a theist opens a discussion about their religion and don't want certain questions, like terrorism, then the person should set those limits.

I dont think non-believer are that dumb...they know and understand well what is a good question for learning.

This is an informal site, and many diverse people.

And even in this thread some non-believers have admitted, they dont care about knowing the answer they recieve from the believer.
That becomes mocking...

Then make a note of who it is and ignore them. Do you want some sort of strict rules here to protect one class of user/members?

 

[Spirit of Light]

Because that is how these informal debates work. It's a back and forth. If the claimant makes truth claims they don't realize are not rational, then it will be revealed. That is debate, it's not fellowship.


This is another thing many believers are not aware of. I can't tell you how many times a believer insists their God has authority over me, and that I am a bad person for not agreeing with their dogma. That is not a very humble believer who is just daring you to challenge his bold assertions. The believer puts his neck on the block and critics swing the ax.

Over the many decades I have debated I have seen quite a few learn how bad their beliefs were and they learned a lot about their thinking and beliefs.

I was on Beliefnet from 1999 to about 2010 when they shut down their debate forums. I remember Blu from those forums. We both had the same names, ha. Anyway as time went on on those forums an interesting thing happened. On the Christianity Debate sub-forum there was at first a theist versus atheist pattern. As time went on there was a shift in the alliances of debaters. It was the rational versus the irrational. That is, the atheists and liberal/moderate theists debated the Christian extremists. So atheists were siding with Pagans, Wiccans, Muslims, witches, liberal Christians, etc., and defending their right to believe as they wish. The Christian extremists were pretty aggressive and very certain they were correct. there was even one white supremacist who insisted Christianity was a white person's religion. Oh boy. Gina.

This good feeling that occurred might be what you are hoping would happen here. I'll say Bnet had loads more members and vastly more diversity of believers. There are just a small core group here who mash it out, so it is more of an independent situation.

There are some good in what you say here, and yes some believers do push their faith in God to much 8n to others, probably because they themselves want the other person to experience the "glory" they have experienced. That can turn out very badly, as also seen in RF.

I do not say every faithful believer always are correct and atheists are always wrong.

What I tried discuss here in this thread is the method, how the negative is framed, and how questions are asked to downgrade every beliefs.

 

[F1fan]

The threat is made, whether i believe it or not, no one even attempts threats to get their way.

Beliefs are not my problem, threats are.

No i left nothing out, you simply didn't understand.

Of course i would and have done several times when asked but see no reason to waste tine repeating myself.

Here is an example of what you are talking about. A slam dunk violation of the Constitution by people in a public school.

BREAKING! FFRF with students, parents sues Huntington, W.Va., schools over Christian revival - Freedom From Religion Foundation

 

[Spirit of Light]

See now you are being cynical because you don't like that I think we all need to be responsible for how we post and debate. Why should non-believers walk on eggshells?

If a theist opens a discussion about their religion and don't want certain questions, like terrorism, then the person should set those limits.


This is an informal site, and many diverse people.


Then make a note of who it is and ignore them. Do you want some sort of strict rules here to protect one class of user/members?

It is fully possible to ask the same kind of question that many do, without hurtful or sarcastic words.

So why cant the few atheists that are making "trouble" in religious discussion ask nice, without referring to the worsed of the worsed they can find?
The truly horrible people who do terror are a minority, not the majority of any religion. But all focus are put on that. Not on what is very good in religious practice, why is that?

 

[F1fan]

It is fully possible to ask the same kind of question that many do, without hurtful or sarcastic words.

So why cant the few atheists that are making "trouble" in religious discussion ask nice, without referring to the worsed of the worsed they can find?

Then the theist can point out how that type of attitude isn't appreciated.

If theists are supposed to be rooted in God's light and love what excuse do they have for the same? I see theists post arrogant things that belittle atheists, as if atheists are lower class humans. We can take it. We point out the arrogance and other failures of virtue.

The truly horrible people who do terror are a minority, not the majority of any religion. But all focus are put on that. Not on what is very good in religious practice, why is that?

I've done that. It's usually in response to blanket claims of a religious authority and virtues, where the believe claims the religion can do magic to your soul if you just believe. A natural question back is why this magic doesn't work on the more extreme of their own religion. These claims are bold and don't account for many in their own religion, so how can they assert it is something that will work on me? Do you follow?

 

[Spirit of Light]

Then the theist can point out how that type of attitude isn't appreciated.

If theists are supposed to be rooted in God's light and love what excuse do they have for the same? I see theists post arrogant things that belittle atheists, as if atheists are lower class humans. We can take it. We point out the arrogance and other failures of virtue.


I've done that. It's usually in response to blanket claims of a religious authority and virtues, where the believe claims the religion can do magic to your soul if you just believe. A natural question back is why this magic doesn't work on the more extreme of their own religion. These claims are bold and don't account for many in their own religion, so how can they assert it is something that will work on me? Do you follow?

I think (don't know) that many theists are really tired of the more bully style of a few atheists, so tbey reply back more irritated or frustrated than needed. It is not good either.

An extremists kind of going to far in their own understanding of the teaching, so they end up not seeing their own fault. They lose a form of connection to reality.

I almost went to extremism many years ago my self (as a buddhist) but luckely a friend got me thinking.

 

[Secret Chief]

I almost went to extremism many years ago my self (as a buddhist)

What would constitute an extremist Buddhist in your view?

 

[Spirit of Light]

What would constitute an extremist Buddhist in your view?

That I did not accept any other faith than Buddhism at that time, looking at it now, I was very far from Buddhism as taught by Buddha. I was an angry person, I was full of hate.

Today I know and understand that all the anger was from within myself, I was angry at everyone else, but I was the problem all the time.

This can be seen in todays extremists too.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I am not the keeper of all truth. So I don't know. But if you disagree with them, does that make them your 'enemy'?

When someone wants you to suffer a fate worse than death, it's fair to say that they're your enemy.

 

[Clara Tea]

This thread is toward the people in RF who every day create OP critiquing any religious teaching they don't believe in or follow themselves.

Question:
What do you gain from it?

Are your OP made so you can learn from believers, or just to mock people you disagree with?

Does it matter to you that some people believe and live their life differently to what you do?

When a believer as you to stop the harrasment, why do you keep pushing? Don't you have respect for other people?

Jesus criticized his own church for closing it's doors to the poor, sick, and homeless, while owning expensive bobbles. He gained a better religion by criticizing. Christ's 2nd coming will be with a "tongue like a sword" (as the bible says), criticizing us for not helping as Christians should.

The Catholic church doesn't allow criticism. They did (or do) allow priests to rape little boys, then compounded that sin by moving the priests to other parishes where they could rape more little boys, then compounded that sin by declaring bankruptcy (worshipping mammon more than God) which prevented their little boy rape victims from getting just compensation through the courts.

Perhaps criticism could stop the practice of priests raping little boys and start compensating past victims? (If, of course, criticism is allowed). If free speech is not allowed, religious freedom would be difficult to maintain.

The picture, above, is from Reverend Jerry Falwell's "The Eights" Which is about the 1978 Rise of the Religious Right. Several presidents were elected by the Religious Right (Ronald Reagan, George Bush Sr., Bush Jr., and Donald Trump). The Religious Right mixed religion and politics.

The picture, above, shows that vast numbers of the Religious Right voted, based on their religion, for Donald Trump.

The country and world is now in a mess, and the Religious Right presidents were in charge as it got messed up. Pollution of God's environment is rampant, Global Warming (which they constantly deny) is about to destroy all life on God's planet (God created that life), the National Debt is huge (made so by the collapse of deregulated loans,

I realize that we should remain quiet as

1. Our country is taken over, as public prayer is foist upon our youth to your God and your bible in our schools without regard to other religions

2. Global warming destroys all life (while religions tell lies about it).

3. Gays are denied marriage (because it is said to wreck regular marriages), thus depriving them of child custody, inheritance, and a host of other rights. Should one person's religion dictate human rights for a person of a different religion?

4. The Religious Right presidents, out of haste, don't wait for proof that countries are involved in terrorism, and wage wars for many years (the war in Iraq was 30 years long, and many American soldiers died, 1,000,000 Iraqis died (some women, some kids), torture camps were made, and the expense was outrageous and that money would have been better spent helping the homeless). I keep hearing about homeless women found frozen to death in America.

5. The National Debt is huge, and largely created by deregulated banks (by Religous Right candidates) that defaulted on loans, and outsourced factories to take advantage of cheap foreign labor (which now own the factories and manufacture defective products). Deregulation made possible the loan of 125% of the value of land, which defaulted when the value of land deflated, causing an avalanche of defaulted loans which took down other companies. Under Reagan, the FSLIC failed, and the FDIC had to be helped. The 1988 recession was caused by these factors, and that caused more debt to pay for the Recovery Act.

6. Wars and the National Rifle Association (NRA) are requirements of the Religious Right. Legitimate war hero, Senator John Kerry, was the target of a campaign of lies (now admitted to be lies) by Veterans for Truth, which made out that Kerry was a phony soldier. The NRA was against Kerry though he hunted during the campaign and used guns in war. Since when was violence part of the philosophy of Jesus?

7. Cutting tax for the rich (giving a small cut, as incentive, to the middle class). Putting the cost of health care on the working middle class, rather than on those who could afford it.

8. Cutting out Constitutional rights, like the right to sue HMOs (claiming frivilous lawsuits). Since we can no longer sue, we have to agree to let HMOs arbitrate (and they are the arbitrators). No successful arbitration was ever made as far as I know. The cost of medical care was supposed to drop when lawsuits were forbidden, but medical care costs have soared. The unpatriotic Patriot Act cut rights still further, and was only supposed to catch the al Qaeda, not continue taking away Constitutionally guaranteed rights.